Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Imperial Data Recovery System


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Traveller (role-playing game). Two merge, two delete, this is the compromise. Up to editors whether to merge anything from history.  Sandstein  19:28, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

The Imperial Data Recovery System

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I se no basis for notability except the one very short veryhnegative review, and no reason to expect anything more  DGG ( talk ) 07:48, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep if more sources can be found, otherwise merge to Traveller (role-playing game) for now. BOZ (talk) 11:47, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:27, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

 '''Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. (I accidentally relisted about 14 hours before the full 7-day mark but I really doubt that changes anything.)'''

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ben · Salvidrim!   &#9993;  17:52, 6 August 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:13, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge Per above comment. I was not able to find any sources (other than the one in the article), but I expect at least some coverage could be in Apple II related magazines (not online yet). Pavlor (talk) 05:07, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete As the only source used to support this article is not, itself, RS, a merge could not be rationally conducted. Chetsford (talk) 10:14, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I´m not expert on this kind of magazines, but in what aspects The Space Gamer fails as a RS? Pavlor (talk) 10:48, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I checked newspapers.com and it appears The Space Gamer was not - itself - sourced by other RS, which is a key characteristic of a RS (along with a gatekeeping process and a physical persona by which it can accept legal liability for what it publishes). Chetsford (talk) 12:16, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That would be a notability requirement for its own article, not for RS status as source for Wikipedia. If they have (had) editorial oversight, that should be enough (more than enough for a mere mention in another article). Pavlor (talk) 12:38, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No, I'm afraid that's not right. The Daily Mail and Breitbart have gatekeeping processes and we've already determined they're not RS. Editorial oversight is only one of several considerations in the correct evaluation of whether an outlet is RS. Chetsford (talk) 12:42, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * These were excluded on case by case basis. Spreading lies and inventing stories certainly is not something one would expect from RS. Can you say the same about The Space Gamer? If not, then comparison to the Daily Mail is certainly not valid. Pavlor (talk) 14:33, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No, because it's (/was) so small and incidental that no RS ever subjected it to scrutiny. Absence of scrutiny is not evidence of reliability. My neighbor and I can start publishing a newsletter using the copy machines at FedEx Office with me as editor and my neighbor as reporter. That doesn't make us a RS. I understand you believe that "If they have (had) editorial oversight, that should be enough" but that's incorrect. I'm going to wrap it up and leave it there; I apologize if I came across as blunt but this isn't an efficient conversation as "If they have (had) editorial oversight, that should be enough" is simply, and objectively, false. Thanks! Chetsford (talk) 15:04, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It is obvious I don´t share your point of view. And your comparison is again, well, flawed. Per WP:RS: Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people.
 * Mike Ashley, Michael Ashley. Gateways to Forever: The Story of the Science-fiction Magazines from 1970 to 1980. Liverpool University Press, 2007, p. 273:  (evolution of the magazine from a mere newsletter to fully professional magazine)
 * Gary Alan Fine. Shared Fantasy: Role Playing Games as Social Worlds. University of Chicago Press, 2002 (paperback release; original release 1983), pp. before 45: (a classic example of WP:USEBYOTHERS)
 * I hope now it is clear that The Space Gamer suffices as a source for one small phrase in another article... Pavlor (talk) 15:49, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Correct; authoritative in relation to the subject is not based on our independent evaluation of authority as nothing on WP is cruxed on original research. Authority can only be demonstrated by other RS and demonstration is required ("These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people."). Chetsford (talk) 16:43, 13 August 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.